Are Bush Tax Rates Worth Raising the Roof Over?

[marshabar1]

President Obama, seeking a Republican agreement to raise the nation's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by Aug 2, will not insist that any deal include an end of President Bush's controversial tax rates on the wealthy.

Obama's tactics are coming into clearer focus: they involve seeking higher taxes not on a broad swath of high income earners but on a narrower band of the super rich, such as owners of private jets. This means that those who earn $250,000 have got a reprieve.

The White House said Monday that the president is pushing the GOP to agree to eliminate some tax breaks and for businesses and loopholes for wealthier taxpayers, but is not trying to eliminate the across-the-board rates introduced by President Bush.

Obama still wants to scrap those rates, but with time running out on the debt-ceiling talks, he is making it clear Monday that he has a new range of targets.

“When we’re talking about the revenue that’s on the table, we’re not talking about the issue that the president’s put forward in his framework, and that is the Bush tax cuts and the tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday.

He said the White House is targeting tax breaks for oil and gas companies, which also go to other U.S. manufacturers, and tax breaks the White House says are provided to the owners of private jets.

thehill.com/homenews/administration/168629-white-house-shifts-from-including-bush-tax-rates-in-debt-talks

[ameiko]

I am SO sick of the "Bush tax cuts for the rich" nonsense. If you paid federal income taxes, you got a tax cut- end of story. Indeed, even Obama had to backtrack a bit, not that his conspirators in the MSM took him tot ask for it, when he said claimed he was for making the Bush tax cuts permanent except for the rich.

Ummm.. which one is it? Were they just for the rich and everyone and this included the rich?

Also, do not listen to his lies about wanting tax relief for those making under 250K. For one thing, that's families making under 250K, not singles which comprise both a larger number and precentage of Americans than ever. More important though is that he did NOTHING to extend the Bush tax cuts for anyone, even those making under 250K, until the GOP forced him to.

It's quite obvious his intent: let the tax cuts expire (this would not have been an issue had not Democrats been obstructionist in the 2003 deal) and then smugly proclaim to the world that he didn't raise your taxes even as many tax payer's tax bills went though through the roof.

Lying phony.

[marshabar1]

I hope the Republicans hold steady. Shows how weak he is that this is the best he can come up with.

[fairlycrazy23]

They are no longer the Bush tax cuts anyway, they are the Obama tax cuts, Obama said they where necessary because of the financial situation.

I'm all for eliminating tax breaks, but only by dramatically simplifying the tax code and cutting rates across the board, and I think the best way would be a federal sales tax replacing income/payroll taxes, but almost anything would be better than the mess we have now.
Just cutting so called tax loop holes (they are not loop holes, they where purposely put into the tax code) will raise the effective tax rate of some companies and will I think ultimately have a negative effect.

[deziloooooo]

Aren't a lot of those tax loop holes there becuse of lobbying by special interest groups, the disbersing of financial support by those businesses tht benefit by them to legislature reelection fund raisors..how can one fel that most of those loop holes are for the benefit of the American taxpayer? Does not compute o me.

I am sure some loop holes are legitimate and there for legitimate reasons particuler to the types of businesses they benefit but all of them, most of them, ? That I have a hard time coming to grips with as a benefit to the country and the average American.

[fairlycrazy23]

Jun 27, 2011 22:16:42 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Aren't a lot of those tax loop holes there becuse of lobbying by special interest groups, the disbersing of financial support by those businesses tht benefit by them to legislature reelection fund raisors..how can one fel that most of those loop holes are for the benefit of the American taxpayer? Does not compute o me.

I am sure some loop holes are legitimate and there for legitimate reasons particuler to the types of businesses they benefit but all of them, most of them, ? That I have a hard time coming to grips with as a benefit to the country and the average American.

You will end up with unintended consequences, cut out a tax breaks or loop wholes or subsidies say for solar power and you put employees that are in solar power out of work.

Now, I think we should cut all these subsidies out, but they won't so the tax code will remain substantially the same and just forces some target industries to change there practices, most likely out sourcing even more.

[henryclay]

If history is any measure, (those who forget history are doomed to repeat it), no matter what happens to tax rates, the Obama administration will spend the money and ask for another debt increase.

And that is the part that ALL Americans should take to bed every night. No matter how much they collect, it won't be enough. call it anything you like, , closing loopholes, , , tax increases, , ,flat tax, , value added tax , , , call it Aunt Susie's pet rooster if that's your choice, but always end your deliberation on the assurance that however much they collect, , , it won't be enough.

It's time. . . . . No, , , it's waaayyy past time that they learned to get along and do their jobs with less taxpayer bounty.

Does anybody know when congress got their last $3,000 a year pay increase, with no increase in job requirements? When was the last time you got anything like it that didn't have a healthy jump in responsibility attached?

I hope everybody who is soft hearted enough to let the debt ceiling go up again is prepared to have it to do all over again when this one runs out. How will you explain to your children and grandchildren that your legacy to them was to let the government spend that legacy on "important" stuff. Stuff that's more important than the financial future of the country.

Oh, the country will still be here. That's not the problem. The problem is embedded in the question of who will be runnng the country, or will it become fractured city states and tribal colonies of haves and have nots, fighting over food and water.

And that's the good part. With no way to protect the country we might get overrun by people who mutilate women in the name on male supremacy.

[ugonow]

There are quite a few republicans that are for cutting some loopholes and subsidies,but they have to toe the party line.

[ugonow]

Does anybody know when congress got their last $3,000 a year pay increase, with no increase in job requirements? When was the last time you got anything like it that didn't have a healthy jump in responsibility attached?

Not exactly a new issue-----www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/562-Congressional-Pay-Raise.html

[fairlycrazy23]

Jun 28, 2011 7:09:08 GMT -5 ugonow said:

There are quite a few republicans that are for cutting some loopholes and subsidies,but they have to toe the party line.

The problem I have with eliminating subsidies as it pertains to the current discussions is that they are mostly being dishonest about it, they talk about subsidies to oil companies, but most of these are "subsidies" that all businesses can take, do they want to completely eliminate the 'subside' or just target oil?

Or subsidies related to corporate jets, like this idiot writes:
www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/gop-willing-to-create-eco_b_884911.html, so lets target corporate jets because they are only used by 'the rich', the article is just a piece to foster wealth envy.
This is not a tax loophole, this is depreciating a capital asset over time, like is done by everybody.

If they where really serious about eliminating tax loop holes, they would be talking about wholesale changes in the tax code, not just trying target easily demagoged items

[jkapp]

Jun 28, 2011 7:09:08 GMT -5 ugonow said:

There are quite a few republicans that are for cutting some loopholes and subsidies,but they have to toe the party line.

And there are some democrats that would like to cut spending and reign in/consolidate government agencies, yet they too must toe the party line.

So I think we see the issue here: stupid political party hacks...

[ugonow]

but most of these are "subsidies" that all businesses can take, do they want to completely eliminate the 'subside' or just target oil?

Not true at all.The last round of talks were of ethonal subsidies,of which huge agri conglomerates like Archer Daniels and Monsanto, lobby hard for as it is a stimulus for their industry.As well as politicians from the area benefiting from them. Farm subsidies are another one that has been looked at, but in the end protected.Someone here a while back was upset Bon Jovi was getting farm subsidies, but neglected to mention many many politicians get them. [some of whom are tea party favorites and claim to be fiscal conservatives] IMO, it is just another case of your programs are a waste, mine good.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Ah, so we're going to targe owners of private jets now. That'll be great for the guy who did four years on an Aircraft Carrier and got out to go to work as a mechanic for a company that manages a private fleet. It'll be great for the bartender working at the bar where that mechanic used to go after work. It'll be awesome for the skilled workers that build most of the components of those private jets right here in the US. I mean, Obama is absolutely right on this.

It's not like we haven't tried this before. The bloated government era of Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter produced a "Luxury Tax" on yachts for the "narrow band" of "mega rich" people enjoying their caviar aboard ship and it put the entire eastern seaboard of the US out of work, killed the yachting and boating industry on the east coast, and we've still not ever recovered from that.

At some point, Republicans are going to have to find their druthers and call Democrats and the Obama regime to account for its economic attack on America.

[ugonow]

Jimmy Carter and Nixon? What about Regans Deficit Reduction Act? ---It created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals in the top 1.2% of the wage earners.[2]
It created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations.
The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed.
Transportation fuels taxes were raised by 4.3 cents per gallon.
The taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised.
The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.
Part IV Section 14131: Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and added inflation adjustments

[ugonow]

Not to mention Reagans TERFA which closed many tax loopholes, making it a huge tax increase for coporations and the wealthy....but lets talk about Nixon and Carter.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The US budget deficit has nothing to do with taxes. It's the SPENDING, and for the last few decades big spending moderate Republicans have joined liberal Democrats to spend far more money than the government takes in. When the Obama regime seized the White House and both Houses of Congress, spending exploded- so much so that they managed to spend more than ALL previous administrations from George Washington to George W. Bush...COMBINED.

The debate over whether or not raising taxes that target the wealthy actually reduces revenue is over. It has been proven too many times to count now that when government raises these kinds of taxes, revenue declines. They ALWAYS, with NO exceptions, bring in LESS than what has been projected, and more often than not-- less overall than what they were bringing in previous to imposing new and higher taxes.

Rich people didn't get that way because they're poor managers of money. They simply CHANGE their habits- or leave.

When NYC raised the tax rate on "rich" people, what did rich people do? They MOVED. So the end result of NYC raising the tax rate actually caused a LOSS of revenue.

When government imposed the aforementioned "Luxury Tax", it killed the luxury boat industry on the East Coast of the US and became a drain on the entire US economy. Because a greedy big spending government so used to spending other people's money "thought" that the rich people would just pay more for their luxury yachts. They've got the money, what's the problem?

They didn't. They instantaneously STOPPED buying US built, US sold, US maintained and flagged yachts and IMMEDIATELY started buying their boats from Europe, and flagging them in the Caribbean, South Pacific, even Africa-- anywhere but here. Ever see a cruise liner flying the stars and stripes? That's ZERO revenue for us.

Fundamentally, however, we really have a HUGE SPENDING PROBLEM, but if you insist on talking about increasing revenue then you simply MUST abandon class warfare and get serious about the things that actually produce revenue. I have already mentioned opening up domestic energy production and increasing that to the Reagan levels which would produce somewhere between $30 and $50 billion directly by way of leases-- nevermind the economic activity that would be spurred by the at least 3 million jobs that would create.

However, there are other steps the government could take NOW to IMMEDIATELY increase revenue:

>>>An IMMEDIATE AND MASSIVE tax CUT for the wealthiest yacht owners and cruise line operators that made the US more money would bring in HUGE reveue.

>>>An IMMEDIATE and MASSIVE cut-- even ELIMINATION of all taxes on repatriated funds by the richest Americans, and the largest, most profitable US Corporations, and

>>>A dramatic REDUCTION or even ELMINATION of corporate taxes (basically an END to the double taxation on shareowners)

These steps would raise more revenue than ANY tax increase you can dream up.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 28, 2011 9:31:08 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Not to mention Reagans TERFA which closed many tax loopholes, making it a huge tax increase for coporations and the wealthy....but lets talk about Nixon and Carter.

The TRA was a massive tax increase on bar tenders, waiters and waitresses, and golf caddies.

It was the largest middle class tax increase in American history- it had virtually NO EFFECT on the "rich" and "corporations". It removed every single tax break the middle class had left, destroyed the lunch business of the entire restaurant industry putting millions of low income workers out of work.

It was Reagan's biggest mistake, but it was par for the course for a Democrat Congress.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 28, 2011 9:43:06 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jun 28, 2011 9:31:08 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Not to mention Reagans TERFA which closed many tax loopholes, making it a huge tax increase for coporations and the wealthy....but lets talk about Nixon and Carter.

The TRA was a massive tax increase on bar tenders, waiters and waitresses, and golf caddies.

It was the largest middle class tax increase in American history- it had virtually NO EFFECT on the "rich" and "corporations". It removed every single tax break the middle class had left, destroyed the lunch business of the entire restaurant industry putting millions of low income workers out of work.

It was Reagan's biggest mistake, but it was par for the course for a Democrat Congress.

And the dirty little secret is that it's going to take another historic bludgeoning of the middle class to fund this massive government monstrosity.

When it finally dawns on Americans that the middle class is going to have to fund all this government largesse-- the rich don't have enough combined to pay for it all-- they're going to change their tune pretty quickly.

I've said it myself- it's going to take a massive middle class tax increase to dig out-- and once we start down that road, we'll see how much of all these government 'services' people in America really want...

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 27, 2011 22:16:42 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

Aren't a lot of those tax loop holes there becuse of lobbying by special interest groups, the disbersing of financial support by those businesses tht benefit by them to legislature reelection fund raisors..how can one fel that most of those loop holes are for the benefit of the American taxpayer? Does not compute o me.

I am sure some loop holes are legitimate and there for legitimate reasons particuler to the types of businesses they benefit but all of them, most of them, ? That I have a hard time coming to grips with as a benefit to the country and the average American.

That's why we need to shift away from an income tax-- and away from all taxes that target the production of income, savings, and investment; and move to a flat fair consumption tax: www.fairtax.org

All objections have been answered, the information is free, and the only people who oppose it are those more worried about class envy for political gain than they are about the country.

[ugonow]

Waiters, bartenders and caddies?Comon, Paul.....The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows:[2]

repealed scheduled increases in accelerated depreciation deductions
tightened safe harbor leasing rules
required taxpayers to reduce basis by 50% of investment tax credit
instituted 10% withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals
tightened completed contract accounting rules
increased FUTA wage base and tax rate

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 27, 2011 21:52:23 GMT -5 @marshabar1 said:

I hope the Republicans hold steady. Shows how weak he is that this is the best he can come up with.

Focus the issue. ASK the voters outright: Do we, as a nation, have a revenue problem, or a SPENDING problem. We already know the answer. The debate is over. It's time for ACTION.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jun 28, 2011 9:52:11 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Waiters, bartenders and caddies?Comon, Paul.....The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows:[2]

repealed scheduled increases in accelerated depreciation deductions
tightened safe harbor leasing rules
required taxpayers to reduce basis by 50% of investment tax credit
instituted 10% withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals
tightened completed contract accounting rules
increased FUTA wage base and tax rate

I'm not talking about the rules, I'm talking about the CONSEQUENCES. There's a difference between policy and the effects of policy- you get that, right?

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

The US budget deficit has nothing to do with taxes.

Thanks for putting that blunder in the beginning; that saved me lots of time.

Obama said they where necessary because of the financial situation.

No, they were a compromise to get unemployment benefits.

"Obama announces tentative deal to extend Bush tax cuts"
www.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/12/obama-addresses-possible-deal-on-bush-tax-cuts/1

[ugonow]

So extending your logic a bit, since good pay and benefits not only raise prices for everyone, but are harmful to companies we should march in and demand to take cuts or work for free? There are consequences to everything.Sometimes they just get very exergerated in some minds.

[ugonow]

And since in reality,employers pay our personal income tax, why not get rid of them also?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 28, 2011 9:40:50 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The US budget deficit has nothing to do with taxes.

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt

wrong answer.

without taxes, the deficit would be $1T higher.
so saying it has NOTHING to do with taxes is totally false.

to say it has EVERYTHING to do with taxes is ALSO false.

it is some combination of both, and so some combination of both should be part of any REASONABLE approach to fixing the problem.

i have yet to see a reasonable proposal.

[bubblyandblue]

I still can not believe that a bunch of people belive that "The US budget deficit has nothing to do with taxes".
I thought taxes were used to limit things that the people voted to have less of. The power of taxation is the power to destroy. We have seen our economy destroyed by speculation, greed, fraud, privalege and monopoly. Many still do not understand the implication that all taxes are paid when someone spends money on something _ the consumer pays all taxes and all extras created by speculation, greed, fraud, privlege, special interests etc. - Don't you see that the cost of goods include all taxes, wages, speculation, fraud, corruption that went into the production of the item consumed.
It should be apparent that we should decrease taxes on our productive economy - labor and capital - and increase it onto the non-productive or non-wealth producing activities - fraud, speculation, monopoly. Since taxation has the power to destroy - destroy those things that are a true detriment to wealth creation in this country.

"The great sore spot in our modern commercial life is found on the speculative side. Under present laws, which foster and encourage speculation, business life is largely a gamble, and to “get something for nothing” is too often considered the keynote to “success”. The great fortunes of today are nearly all speculative fortunes; and the ambitious young man just starting out in life thinks far less of producing or rendering service than he does of “putting it over” on the other fellow. This may seem a broad statement to some: but thirty years of business life in the heart of American commercial activity convinces me that it is absolutely true.
If, however, the speculative incentive in modern commercial life were eliminated, and no man could become rich or successful unless he gave “value received” and rendered service for service, then indeed a profound change would have been brought in our whole commercial system, and it would be a change which no honest man would regret".- John Moody, Wall Street Publisher, and President of Moody’s Investors’ Service. Dated 1924

[fairlycrazy23]

The issue really isn't the 'budget deficit has nothing to do with taxes' the primary issue is that we don't have a revenue problem so much as a spending problem, and even though it has accelerated greatly the last two years, it has been a long time coming.

I agree we should reduce Federal Taxation (all taxation really), but I don't agree we should use tax code to punish winners and losers, that is why I prefer something like the fairtax, simply tax consumption not production. And under the Fair tax, the tax code can't be used by the Federal Government to change behavior or pick winners and losers.

[bubblyandblue]

I am not endorsing picking winners or losers - I am edorsing taxing the hell out of speculation, privlege, monopoly - anything that does not create national wealth through the use of capital and labor.
I think we should use tax to preserve that wealth that was created by the population. Already, the consumer pays all taxes through the products consumed. Speculation steals wealth created by labor and capital and employs neither. Why tax consumption if we have a problem with people not being able to consume enough - like food, housing......

[bubblyandblue]

The “letting down”, or “slowing up,” of business, the closing of banks. The growing unemployment, the high cost of living are not due to official grafting, scandalous though it has been, but to our unsound revenue system.
The first man who asked Congress for a special privilege, that is, the first man who confessed to our law making body that he could not conduct his affairs unless a special law was passed to protect him from the competition of another man who could operate without such protection, set in motion an evil train of effects.